Pipeline Safety: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas From Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low-Stress Lines, 31634-31646 [E8-12099]

Agencies

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 3, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31634-31646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12099]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket ID PHMSA-RSPA-2003-15864]
RIN 2137-AD98


Pipeline Safety: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas From Rural 
Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low-Stress Lines

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: PHMSA is amending its pipeline safety regulations to extend 
added protection to certain environmentally sensitive areas that could 
be damaged by failure of a rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering 
line or low-stress pipeline. Building on PHMSA's existing regulatory 
framework, the rule is intended to protect designated ``unusually 
sensitive areas'' (USAs)--locations requiring extra protection because 
of the presence of sole-source drinking water, endangered species, or 
other ecological resources. This rule defines ``regulated rural onshore 
hazardous liquid gathering lines'' and requires operators of these 
lines to comply with safety requirements that address the most common 
threats to the integrity of these pipelines: Corrosion and third-party 
damage. In accordance with the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, 
Enforcement and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2006, the rule also significantly 
narrows the regulatory exception for rural onshore low-stress hazardous 
liquid pipelines by extending all existing safety regulations, 
including integrity management requirements, to large-diameter low-
stress pipelines within a defined ``buffer'' area around a USA. The 
final rule requires operators of these, and all other low-stress 
pipelines, to comply with annual reporting requirements, furnishing 
data needed for further rulemaking required by the PIPES Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lane Miller by phone at (405) 954-4969 
or by e-mail at Lane.Miller@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    PHMSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (71 FR 
52504; September 6, 2006) proposing to extend pipeline safety 
regulations to rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and rural 
onshore hazardous liquid low-stress pipelines located in or within a 
quarter mile of previously-defined ``unusually sensitive areas'' (See 
Sec.  195.6). Unusually sensitive areas (USAs) that are in non-
populated areas need extra protection because they contain sole-source 
drinking water, endangered species, or other ecological resources that 
could be adversely affected by accidents or leaks from hazardous liquid 
pipelines. There is no universal definition of either gathering lines 
or low-stress pipelines. For purposes of safety regulation, PHMSA 
defines gathering lines by reference to diameter and function and low-
stress pipelines by reference to the stress level at which they operate 
(see Sec.  195.2).
    With limited exceptions, pipelines operating at low-stress in rural 
areas and onshore gathering lines in rural areas have not been 
regulated under Federal safety regulations for hazardous liquid 
pipelines (49 CFR part 195). Section 195.2 defines a ``rural area'' as 
outside the limits of any incorporated or unincorporated city, town, 
village, or any other designated residential or commercial area, such 
as a subdivision, a business or shopping center, or community 
development. Low-stress pipelines in these areas have been regulated 
only if they cross commercially navigable waterways (Sec.  
195.1(b)(i)(C)); in the case of rural gathering lines, only limited 
requirements (inspection and burial (Sec.  195.1(b)(4)) have applied 
and only to onshore gathering lines located in Gulf of Mexico inlets.
    The proposed rule would have defined ``regulated rural onshore 
gathering lines'' and ``regulated rural onshore low-stress lines'' and 
would have required operators of such pipelines to comply with a 
threat-focused set of requirements in part 195. The safety requirements 
proposed to be applied addressed the most common threats to the 
integrity of these rural lines: Corrosion and third-party damage. The 
proposal was intended to provide additional integrity protection, to 
prevent significant adverse environmental consequences, and to

[[Page 31635]]

enhance public confidence in the safety of these rural pipelines.
    Before PHMSA issued the NPRM, Congress adopted the Pipeline 
Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES 
Act), which the President signed into law on December 29, 2006 (Pub. L. 
109-468). Section four of the PIPES Act (codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102) 
requires PHMSA to ``issue regulations subjecting low-stress hazardous 
liquid pipelines to the same standards and regulations as other 
hazardous liquid pipelines.'' The Act expressly provides that the new 
regulations may be phased in.
    The threat-focused set of requirements PHMSA proposed in the NPRM, 
although drawn from part 195, would not have satisfied the ``same 
standards and regulations'' requirement in the PIPES Act. PHMSA 
concluded it would be inefficient to finalize that proposal without 
change and then later impose the rest of the Part 195 requirements. 
PHMSA noted that the rural low-stress pipelines covered by the NPRM are 
those where additional safety regulation is most important--larger-
diameter pipelines that can have adverse impacts on unusually sensitive 
areas. PHMSA therefore concluded that the most appropriate means of 
implementing the PIPES Act mandate was to extend full regulation to the 
higher-risk, larger-diameter rural low-stress pipelines in this initial 
phase, followed by regulation of all smaller diameter low-stress 
pipelines and larger-diameter pipelines located outside of the defined 
``buffer'' area.
    PHMSA presented its plan for phased rulemaking to the Technical 
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC) in 
January 2007. For low-stress pipelines, PHMSA recommended that 
regulations be developed in two phases and explained that in phase one 
it would extend all of part 195 to those higher risk, rural low-stress 
pipelines addressed in the NPRM and in phase two would address those 
remaining unregulated rural low-stress pipelines. This phased approach 
will allow PHMSA to bring the higher-risk pipelines under immediate 
regulation while gathering more comprehensive data for later rulemaking 
concerning the lower-risk unregulated rural pipelines.
    To implement phase one, PHMSA modified its NPRM via a supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) that proposed to apply all part 
195 requirements to any rural low-stress pipeline with a nominal 
diameter of 8\5/8\ inches or more and located in or within one-half 
mile of a USA. This buffer area was increased from one-quarter to one-
half mile based upon comments from the NPRM. PHMSA published the SNPRM 
(72 FR 28008; May 18, 2007).

II. Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines

Proposed Changes

    Congress gave DOT specific authority to define gathering lines for 
purposes of safety regulation, and to regulate a class of rural 
gathering lines called ``regulated gathering lines'' (49 U.S.C. 
60101(a)(21) and 60101(b)). This authority directed DOT to consider 
functional and operational characteristics in defining gathering lines. 
Further direction was to consider such factors as location, length of 
line, operating pressure, throughput, and gas composition in deciding 
which rural lines warrant regulation. In its report on H.R. 1489, a 
bill that led to the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992, the House Committee 
on Energy and Commerce said ``DOT should find out whether any gathering 
lines present a risk to people or the environment, and if so how large 
a risk and what measures should be taken to mitigate the risk'' (See 
H.R. Report No. 102-247-Part 1, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., 23 (1991)). In 
PHMSA's view, Congress wanted to limit ``regulated gathering lines'' to 
lines posing a significant risk and to limit regulation by using a 
risk-based approach for areas where the consequences of a pipeline 
failure would be the greatest. DOT subsequently revised its regulations 
in part 195 to cover hazardous liquid gathering lines in non-rural 
areas.
    The rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines PHMSA proposed 
to regulate in the September 6, 2006 NPRM are those that present the 
greatest risk to the environment. The NPRM proposed to add a new Sec.  
195.11(a) to define a ``regulated rural gathering line'' as a rural 
onshore gathering line with the following characteristics:
     A nominal diameter between 6\5/8\ inches and 8\5/8\ 
inches;
     Operates at a maximum operating pressure established under 
Sec.  195.406 that corresponds to a stress level greater than 20 
percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) or, if the 
stress level is unknown or the pipeline is not constructed with steel 
pipe, at a pressure of more than 125 pounds per square inch (psi) gage; 
and
     Is located in or within a quarter mile of an unusually 
sensitive area as defined in Sec.  195.6.
    In the NPRM, PHMSA further proposed that rural gathering lines 
meeting these criteria would have to comply with a focused set of 
requirements in part 195 that would address the principal risks posed 
by these rural pipelines.
    The PIPES Act did not affect this proposal. The subsequent SNPRM 
did not change what had been proposed in the NPRM with respect to these 
rural gathering lines.

Comments on the NPRM

    PHMSA received comments from 22 organizations in response to the 
NPRM for rural hazardous liquid gathering lines. These included two 
pipeline operators, one consultant providing services to pipeline 
operators, eleven trade associations and related organizations, and 
eight public interest groups involved in pipeline safety.
Scope
    As described above, PHMSA proposed applying regulatory requirements 
to rural gathering lines located in or within a quarter mile of a USA 
using a risk-based approach on those areas where the consequences of a 
pipeline failure would be the greatest. A number of commenters 
suggested changes, discussed below, to the scope of the proposed rule. 
PHMSA has not made any changes in the final rule in response to these 
comments.

    a. Effect on production facilities. Some commenters sought 
clarification about whether the proposed changes would affect 
production facilities. Several commenters, including several 
associations representing petroleum producers, suggested that a clearer 
definition of ``production facility'' is needed to confirm that crude 
oil producers are not subject to the regulations. The Western States 
Petroleum Association, supported by the American Petroleum Institute 
(API) and the California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), 
requested clarification on the applicability of the new requirements to 
flow lines.
Response
    PHMSA does not have statutory authority to regulate production 
facilities. ``Production facility'' has long been defined in Sec.  
195.2, and PHMSA did not propose to change the definition in the NPRM. 
Therefore, revising the definition is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking. Further, it is commonly understood within industry and by 
regulators that flow lines are part of production facilities. The 
regulations in part 195 do not apply to any portion of production 
facilities.

    b. Alternative bases. Some commenters questioned the use of a USA 
as a basis for determining the scope of the proposed rule. The North 
Slope Borough (Alaska) Planning

[[Page 31636]]

Department suggested that part 195 requirements should apply to all 
North Slope pipelines. The Department also suggested that PHMSA revise 
the definition of a USA. In addition, the Ohio Oil and Gas Association 
(OOGA) requested clarification to ensure the proposed regulations do 
not include pipelines within a quarter mile of individual residential 
water wells absent other triggering features.
Response
    The rule applies safety regulations to those portions of rural 
gathering lines (and rural low-stress pipelines as discussed further 
below) where leaks can cause the most significant damage. In regulating 
pipelines based on risk, PHMSA does not have a basis for extending 
regulation to other unregulated rural gathering lines. PHMSA does not 
have regulatory authority over all types of production operations 
conducted on the North Slope. This rule regulates rural gathering 
lines, which are not present on the North Slope based upon the current 
production operation designs. Therefore, the rural gathering line 
provisions in this final rule do not apply to the production operations 
on the North Slope.
    The clarification requested by OOGA is unnecessary. PHMSA proposed 
to regulate rural onshore gathering lines based on their proximity to 
USAs. USAs are defined in Sec.  195.6. Section 195.6(a) defines 
drinking water sources; individual residential wells are not included 
in this definition. Neither the NPRM nor the SNPRM proposed changes to 
the USA definition to include such wells. Any changes to the definition 
of a USA are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

    c. Volume throughput. The Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation (ADEC) suggested that PHMSA include volume throughput as a 
contributing factor, along with location and size, in classifying 
pipelines for purposes of establishing risk and determining the 
appropriate regulatory regime.
Response
    PHMSA has decided to use operating stress level and size of a 
gathering line as opposed to volume throughput for the purposes of 
establishing the correlation of risk and consequence to a USA. Volume 
throughput can fluctuate considerably on a daily basis depending on the 
operation of a pipeline. Stress level and size does correlate to volume 
but stress level is an understood pipeline characteristic in the 
pipeline industry. Therefore, PHMSA did not include a throughput 
criterion.

    d. Drug and alcohol testing. The Pipeline Testing Consortium, Inc. 
(PTC) commented that drug and alcohol testing is not listed as one of 
the applicable safety requirements.
Response
    Drug and alcohol testing requirements are contained in 49 CFR part 
199. Section 199.1 states that they apply to operators of all 
facilities subject to part 192, 193, or 195. Since the gathering lines 
that will become regulated under this final rule are now ``subject to'' 
part 195, no further change is needed to ensure the applicability of 
drug and alcohol testing requirements.
Buffer for Rural Onshore Gathering Lines
    The NPRM proposed to define a regulated rural onshore gathering 
line as one meeting certain criteria and located in or within a quarter 
mile of a USA. A number of comments addressed the adequacy of the 
quarter mile buffer.
    Industry commenters supported the use of the buffer, noting that 
analysis has shown that a quarter mile buffer will encompass most 
releases that could affect a USA, and that use of a buffer will pose 
less of a burden than a requirement for operators to determine, through 
comprehensive analysis, which pipeline segments could affect a USA. 
Taking a contrary position, Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory 
Council (CIRCAC) noted that the buffer fails to address the potential 
for spilled hazardous liquids to move to environmentally-sensitive 
areas through water or watersheds from farther than a quarter mile away 
and would thus fail to include some pipelines that could affect a USA.
Response
    PHMSA agrees that using a pre-defined buffer to determine which 
rural gathering lines will be regulated may except some rural gathering 
line segments that could affect USAs. Nevertheless, PHMSA's experience 
with oversight of ``could affect'' determinations for hazardous liquid 
pipelines under integrity management requirements has shown that these 
analyses are quite difficult and resource intensive.\1\ Data available 
to PHMSA shows the largest spill on land traveled no more than two 
acres from the site of failure. This data, coupled with the relatively 
lower pressure and smaller diameter of gathering lines, leads us to 
conclude that a quarter mile buffer is adequate to encompass most 
pipelines that could affect a USA. We are using a buffer approach to 
focus on the pipelines that pose the most significant risk and to 
reduce the burden on these operators to determine which of their 
pipelines are subject to regulation. It would be unnecessarily 
burdensome to require all operators of these pipelines to perform 
complete ``could affect'' analyses when it is unlikely such analyses 
would result in much additional pipe becoming regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Part 195 uses the phrase ``could affect a high consequence 
area'' to identify pipelines subject to integrity management rules 
(Sec.  195.452). Section I.B. of Appendix C to part 195 lists 
various risk factors, such as topography and shutdown ability, an 
operator can use in deciding if a pipeline ''could affect a high 
consequence area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actions Required for Regulated Rural Gathering Lines
    The NPRM proposed that regulated rural gathering lines comply with 
a set of requirements that focused on the most significant risks to 
these pipelines--corrosion and third-party damage. The NPRM further 
proposed that operators continuously monitor their pipelines to 
identify and remediate any changes in operating conditions that could 
necessitate cleaning the lines and accelerate their corrosion control 
program as needed. Several commenters questioned the proposed required 
actions or suggested that additional actions would be appropriate.

    a. Continuous monitoring. API commented that the proposed 
requirement to continuously monitor regulated gathering lines for 
corrosion was unnecessary because the existing regulations adequately 
address corrosion and that it was unclear what additional monitoring is 
needed.
Response
    We have clarified what we intended by the proposed requirement for 
``continuous monitoring''. In the final rule we are requiring that 
operators identify operating conditions that might require cleaning the 
pipeline or using other measures, such as inhibitors, to prevent 
conditions that may lead to internal corrosion (e.g. , the build-up of 
solids). Gathering lines, by their nature, carry crude oil that 
typically contains contaminants or impurities such as basic sediment 
and water. These contaminants do not cause a problem where the oil is 
traveling at high velocities in the pipeline. Under this condition, 
these contaminants do not separate from the fluid stream and settle on 
the bottom of the pipe. If the velocity of the fluid stream slows down, 
these impurities can drop out of the oil which can potentially result 
in internal

[[Page 31637]]

corrosion. PHMSA considers that monitoring operating conditions and 
running cleaning pigs as appropriate will decrease the likelihood of 
internal corrosion.

    b. Minimum standards for maintenance. ADEC commented that the 
regulations should establish minimum standards for maintenance pigging 
frequency and other maintenance operations designed to prevent a spill. 
ADEC also suggested that the regulations should require monitoring and 
recording of corrosion rates through the use of weight-loss coupons or 
comparable technology.
Response
    The requirement to monitor conditions and take additional actions 
to address potential internal corrosion as needed is new. It also 
addresses ADEC's concern about the minimum frequency of maintenance 
pigging and other activities to prevent a spill. PHMSA does not 
consider it practical to establish a one-size-fits-all minimum 
frequency for these activities, since the frequency at which they are 
needed varies considerably for different pipeline conditions. A 
requirement that operators monitor their conditions and implement 
actions as appropriate to prevent or mitigate internal corrosion is 
more appropriate than specified minimum frequencies for maintenance 
operations.

    c. Integrity management requirements. CIRCAC noted that we did not 
propose any integrity management requirements for rural gathering 
lines.
Response
    The integrity management requirements are not necessary for rural 
gathering lines. PHMSA's experience indicates that the most significant 
threats to these pipelines are third-party damage and corrosion. The 
requirements we are imposing on these pipelines address those threats. 
Imposing integrity management requirements would require operators to 
perform individual risk analyses. This analysis entails a foot by foot 
evaluation of threats to the pipeline taking into account the 
topography on both sides of the pipeline, the volume transported, the 
diameter of the pipeline, the type of pipe, and the pressure in the 
pipeline and the impact of the release. Our experience does not support 
the need to impose such a burden. Instead, we have considered the risk 
to these pipelines, identified the applicable threats and required the 
measures that best address these threats. These measures include 
developing a damage prevention program, complying with the corrosion 
control requirements of subpart H, and monitoring and mitigating 
conditions that could lead to internal corrosion.
Economic Impact
    Several commenters, including a number of associations representing 
petroleum producers, noted that rural gathering lines are generally low 
revenue pipelines. They contended that some of the proposed compliance 
measures will be cost-prohibitive and will cause operators to abandon 
these pipelines.
Response
    PHMSA does not intend to cause the unnecessary abandonment of 
pipelines providing valuable contributions to the U.S. energy supply. 
For gathering lines that will become regulated under this rule, the 
safety regulations imposed represent a minimal set of requirements that 
focus on the most significant threats to these pipelines. While they 
may impose some additional burden, PHMSA considers this threat-focused 
set of requirements necessary to assure adequate safety.
Reporting and Data Gathering
    Cook Inlet Keeper commented that data collection requirements for 
rural gathering lines have been inadequate and supported the proposal 
that operators of these gathering lines follow the reporting 
requirements of subpart B.
Response
    The final rule makes the reporting requirements of part 195, 
subpart B, applicable to those rural gathering lines meeting the 
definition of a regulated rural gathering line.

III. Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Low-Stress Pipelines

Proposed Changes

    The NPRM proposed adding a new Sec.  195.12(a) to define a 
``regulated rural low-stress line'' as an onshore pipeline in a rural 
area meeting the following criteria:
     A nominal diameter of 8\5/8\ inches or more;
     Located in or within a quarter mile of a USA as defined in 
Sec.  195.6; and
     Operating at a maximum pressure established under Sec.  
195.406 that corresponds to a stress level equal to or less than 20 
percent of SMYS, or if the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is 
not constructed with steel pipe, a pressure equal to or less than 125 
psi (861 kPa) gage.
    For these rural low-stress pipelines PHMSA proposed to apply a 
threat-focused set of requirements in part 195. Most comments received 
regarding this proposal were addressed in the SNPRM and are not further 
discussed here.
    As discussed above, section four of the PIPES Act requires PHMSA to 
``issue regulations subjecting low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines to 
the same standards and regulations as other hazardous liquid 
pipelines''. To address this mandate PHMSA issued a SNPRM proposing to 
extend all part 195 requirements to rural low-stress pipelines meeting 
certain criteria. This is phase one of PHMSA's phased approach to 
implementing the mandate. Phase one addresses the larger-diameter, 
higher-risk, rural low-stress pipelines that could pose a greater 
threat to USAs. This phase will also help capture the data PHMSA needs 
before it can extend part 195 coverage to all other unregulated, rural 
low-stress pipelines in phase 2.
    The SNPRM:
     Revised the proposed definition to include rural low-
stress pipelines in or within a half mile of a USA,
     Applied to pipelines meeting the listed criteria of all 
requirements of part 195 rather than the threat-focused set of 
requirements proposed in the NPRM,
     Allowed operators to conduct ``could affect'' analyses of 
which pipeline segments could affect a USA in lieu of the buffer for 
application of the integrity management requirements of Sec.  195.452, 
and
     Allowed operators of pipelines meeting specified criteria 
to notify PHMSA if they would incur an excessive economic burden in 
complying with the integrity management assessment requirement. PHMSA 
proposed to stay compliance with the integrity management assessment 
requirements while it reviewed the notification. Based on the outcome 
of the review, PHMSA proposed to grant the operator a special permit 
imposing alternative safety requirements in lieu of an assessment.
    The SNPRM also proposed to extend subpart B reporting requirements 
to operators of all unregulated low-stress pipelines. PHMSA explained 
that this was necessary so that it would have accurate and complete 
data about these types of pipeline operations for phase two of its low-
stress pipeline rulemaking.

Comments on the SNPRM and NPRM (to the Extent not Addressed in the 
SNPRM)

    PHMSA received comments from ten organizations in response to the 
SNPRM. These included one pipeline operator, six trade associations and 
related organizations, and three public

[[Page 31638]]

interest groups involved in pipeline safety.
Buffer
    a. Buffer size. Several trade associations challenged our proposal 
to increase from a quarter to a half mile the buffer used to determine 
which rural low-stress pipelines will be subject to regulation. The 
commenters noted that PHMSA stated in the SNPRM that it considered a 
quarter mile to be adequate but had increased the buffer for 
conservatism and to address concerns of public interest groups. The 
commenters further noted that none of these groups provided any 
technical basis for a particular buffer size and stated that they 
believe expanding the buffer to a half mile is unwarranted.
Response
    As described above, the PIPES Act requires that all rural low-
stress pipelines be subject to all the safety requirements in part 195. 
This requirement largely renders moot disagreements about the size of 
the buffer used here. In the final rule, as was proposed in the SNPRM, 
PHMSA has doubled the size of the buffer, to a half mile, for added 
conservatism. For phase one, we are approximating the could-affect 
analysis by using a buffer to provide a reasonable means of identifying 
most of the pipelines that could affect USAs. This increase in the 
buffer size from one-quarter to one-half mile increases the estimated 
amount of low-stress pipelines covered in this final rule from 694 
miles to 803 miles.

    b. Buffer vs. analysis. Cook Inlet Keeper again objected to the use 
of a buffer approach in lieu of detailed could-affect determinations. 
Cook Inlet Keeper further objected to the option for operators to use 
could-affect determinations to reduce the scope of pipeline covered by 
integrity management requirements in the absence of an analogous means 
to increase the scope of coverage where pipeline segments more than a 
half mile from a USA could have an effect in the event of a leak.

Response
    For phase one, the buffer is the first step in applying part 195 
requirements to all rural low-stress pipelines. For this phase, PHMSA 
considers it appropriate to increase the size of the buffer to be used 
for bringing rural low-stress pipelines under regulation as a response 
to the expressed concerns of the public interest groups and Congress. 
PHMSA also notes that this final rule allows operators to analyze their 
pipelines to determine which segments could affect USAs for purposes of 
application of integrity management requirements. This could-affect 
analysis could result in a larger or smaller area than the half mile 
buffer. As PHMSA has done with other integrity management inspections, 
these analyses will be scrutinized for adequate supporting technical 
justification and appropriate consideration of risk factors.
Reporting Requirements
    a. Lack of integrity management data. The Independent Producers 
Association of America (IPAA), the Independent Petroleum Association of 
Mountain States (IPAMS), and API objected to the proposal to apply all 
the reporting requirements in subpart B to those rural low-stress 
pipelines that will be considered in the phase two rulemaking. These 
associations suggested PHMSA require only infrastructure information 
for these currently non-regulated pipelines until phase two is 
implemented, because operators are not required to implement integrity 
management requirements on these pipelines and would lack the 
associated data for annual and incident reports. Cook Inlet Keeper 
supported requiring operators of all low-stress pipelines to report 
their incidents and safety-related conditions but took no position on 
data related to integrity management.
Response
    Parts J and K of the annual report form require reporting of data 
derived from integrity management assessments. PHMSA recognizes that 
operators will not have integrity management information on pipelines 
to which integrity management requirements are not applicable. We have 
modified the new Sec.  195.48 so that operators of low-stress pipelines 
do not have to complete parts J and K of the annual report form, or to 
report mileage in high consequences areas,\2\ unless they are also 
subject to integrity management requirements. However, all operators of 
low-stress pipelines must report incidents and safety-related 
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ High consequence areas are defined in 49 CFR 195.450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Effective dates for reporting. API noted the range of proposed 
dates for complying with the reporting requirements differed between 
proposed sections 195.12(b)(1), where it was stated as 6-12 months, and 
195.48 where it was stated as 6-9 months. Cook Inlet Keeper supported 
the proposed implementation timeframes but made no choices for 
particular values within the ranges proposed.
Response
    In the SNPRM, we solicited comments on a range of potential 
implementation timeframes for reporting requirements and received no 
comments on which time period was appropriate. PHMSA will require that 
reporting begin six months after the effective date of the final rule. 
This date was included in the range suggested in both sections cited by 
API, and PHMSA believes it affords operators reasonable time to make 
necessary changes in internal data collection and processing 
procedures.
Economic Burden
    Several organizations noted that the increased burden to conduct 
integrity management assessments could cause operators of some 
pipelines associated with marginal and ``stripper'' wells to cease 
operation, causing loss of oil supply or use of more costly and more-
risky truck transport. To address these comments, PHMSA proposed a 
procedure under which operators serving such wells could obtain relief 
from the integrity management assessment requirement. The SNPRM 
proposed to limit this procedure to operators of rural low-stress 
pipelines serving production facilities and operating at a flow rate 
lower than or equal to 14,000 barrels per day. The operator of such a 
pipeline could notify PHMSA of its intent to abandon the pipeline 
because of the economic burden associated with the integrity management 
assessment requirements. PHMSA would stay the integrity management 
assessment requirements pending review of such notification and, based 
on the analysis of the notification, could grant the operator a special 
permit to allow continued operation of the pipeline while also assuring 
safety through alternative safety requirements.
    API and SemCrude (a pipeline operator) suggested that the economic 
burden notification provision be made available to all low-stress 
pipelines by eliminating the criterion that a pipeline must carry crude 
oil from a production facility. Independent Petroleum Association of 
New Mexico (IPANM) supported the proposed exemption from the inline 
inspection requirements for pipelines with less than 14,000 barrels per 
day flow rate because of the potential loss of energy supply if wells 
were abandoned. API and AOPL recommended that PHMSA prepare a guidance 
document describing the factors it intends to consider in its review of 
economic burden notifications. IPA, IPAMS, and Cook

[[Page 31639]]

Inlet Keeper supported the proposed notification requirement, with Cook 
Inlet Keeper noting that it proposes ``a reasonable approach to ensure 
that PHMSA's rule will not result in loss of a critical energy 
supply.''
Response
    PHMSA did not propose an exemption from compliance. Rather, in the 
SNPRM, PHMSA proposed to allow operators of pipelines meeting specified 
criteria to notify PHMSA that an integrity management assessment would 
be too economically burdensome and to have their particular 
circumstances considered. In these limited instances, after 
consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE), we intended to issue 
a special permit that would require other, less economically burdensome 
safety requirements in lieu of an assessment.
    We have included this provision in the final rule. This provision 
is intended to address impacts on producing wells that are only 
marginally economical. Operation of these wells would be affected if 
the pipeline serving them is shut down because of an economic inability 
to comply with the assessment requirements. The result would be a loss 
to U.S. energy supply of oil from shutting these wells or an adverse 
impact on safety by a shift to another form of transportation (e.g. , 
trucks). As such, the concern is specifically limited to pipelines that 
carry crude oil from production facilities. We recognize that the final 
rule will impose further economic burden on those operators of rural 
low-stress pipelines that have not previously been subject to PHMSA's 
regulations and oversight. In most cases, this will not be a factor. As 
PHMSA explained in the SNPRM, we believe most of the rural low-stress 
pipelines that will be subject to the final rule are held by large 
operators, which are already complying with the requirements of part 
195. In addition, in keeping with the PIPES Act, we consider the 
regulatory burden justified by the increased safety and environmental 
protection that will result from implementation of the final rule.
    PHMSA believes that API and AOPL requested guidelines because the 
SNPRM did not include the types of information PHMSA wants operators to 
provide in the notification. Therefore, PHMSA has added in this final 
rule a list of the topics that must be addressed when notifying us of 
an economic burden in Sec.  195.12(c)(2). PHMSA will consider the need 
for additional guidance as experience is gained in evaluating these 
notifications.
Scope
    a. USA as basis. The North Slope Borough Planning Department 
recommended, as they did for rural gathering lines, that part 195 
regulations apply to all the pipelines on the North Slope. The North 
Slope Borough Planning Department also recommended that PHMSA expand 
the USA definition.
Response
    This rulemaking is the first phase that brings a portion of rural 
low-stress pipelines under regulation. As discussed above, PHMSA is 
acting in phases to meet the statutory mandate that all low-stress 
pipelines be made subject to safety regulations. Future phases will 
make all low-stress pipelines on the North Slope subject to regulation. 
No change in the USA definition is needed to accomplish this.
    b. Residential wells. The OOGA sought assurance that the definition 
of regulated rural low-stress pipelines applies only to hazardous 
liquid pipelines. The OOGA also requested clarification that the 
proposed regulations are not meant to include pipelines within a 
quarter mile of individual residential water wells, absent other 
triggering features.
Response
    The definition of regulated rural low-stress pipelines is included 
in part 195. Part 195 is applicable only to hazardous liquid pipelines. 
This definition therefore has no effect on other types of pipelines. 
OOGA's comment concerning residential wells applied to both gathering 
lines and low-stress pipelines and has been addressed in the gathering 
line discussion above.
    c. Potential for jurisdictional confusion. The Oklahoma Independent 
Petroleum Association (OIPA) suggested that PHMSA provide additional 
clarification about which pipelines are subject to the SNPRM to prevent 
confusion within the regulated industry and among state regulatory 
agencies and to prevent the requirements from being inadvertently 
applied to gathering lines. Additionally, IPAA and IPAMS noted that 
some confusion may still exist in the SNPRM concerning applicability of 
some requirements to gathering systems. API suggested that to avoid 
confusion between rural gathering lines covered under Sec.  195.11 and 
rural low-stress pipelines covered under Sec.  195.12, we include a 
nominal diameter greater than 8\5/8\ inches as a criterion defining 
regulated rural low-stress pipelines.
Response
    We do not think further clarification is needed in the final rule. 
We are not adopting API's recommendation to define a low-stress 
pipeline as a pipeline with a nominal diameter greater than 8\5/8\ 
inches. Gathering line is defined in Sec.  195.2 to be a pipeline of 
8\5/8\ inches or less nominal outside diameter that transports 
petroleum from a production facility. The key characteristic is coming 
from a ``production facility.'' A pipeline that comes from a production 
facility that is greater than 8\5/8\ inches in diameter is not a 
gathering line, but a pipeline in transportation. If this type of line 
operates at a pressure that is less than 20% SMYS, it would be subject 
to the requirements proposed for low-stress pipelines. There are also 
pipelines that are upstream of refining that do not come from a 
production facility and are pipelines in transportation. If these 
pipelines are greater than 8\5/8\ inches and operate at a pressure that 
is less than 20% SMYS, they also would be subject to the requirements 
proposed for rural low-stress pipelines.

IV. Comments Outside the Scope of This Rulemaking

    Several commenters raised issues beyond the scope of the NPRM or 
SNPRM.
    ADEC suggested we include in Sec.  195.452, a specific requirement 
to periodically measure and record the wall thickness of each pipeline 
and establish in the regulations a minimum pipe wall ``fit for 
service'' standard. ADEC also suggested that the regulations should 
require evaluation of flow rates, water content, sediment, and upset 
conditions as part of the integrity assessment proposed in the NPRM.
    API recommended that the repair criteria in Sec.  195.452(h) be 
revised to relax the requirement to repair dents without metal loss. 
API states that dents operating at such low pressures pose a much lower 
risk of failure.
    API and Bridger Pipeline LLC suggested that ``petroleum storage'' 
be added to the list of facilities in proposed Sec.  195.1(b)(4) so 
that short (i.e., less than one mile long) low-stress pipelines serving 
such facilities would be excluded from regulation. In support of its 
comment, API noted that the logic used in a 1997 rulemaking to 
establish the other exclusions contained in Sec.  195.1(b)(4) applies 
equally well to pipelines serving petroleum storage facilities.

Response

    Each of these comments addresses issues which were not proposed in 
the

[[Page 31640]]

NPRM or SNPRM, and thus were not subject to public comment. Therefore, 
we have not incorporated any of these changes into the final rule.
    With respect to ADEC's comments, the NPRM included limited 
requirements for integrity assessment for rural low-stress pipelines as 
an alternative to the requirements of Sec.  195.452. In the SNPRM, 
PHMSA proposed to substitute the full integrity assessment requirements 
of Sec.  195.452. The integrity assessment requirements of Sec.  
195.452, imposed on low-stress pipelines by Sec.  195.12(b)(2) of this 
final rule, will result in the same type of analysis as ADEC suggests 
without the need for modifying Sec.  195.452.
    API's and Bridger Pipeline's comment applies to a paragraph 
included in a revision of Sec.  195.1 describing the overall 
applicability of part 195. The purpose of the revision in the NPRM was 
for clarity and proposed no substantive changes other than to add the 
pipelines addressed in this rulemaking. The proposed revision to Sec.  
195.1 was repeated in the SNPRM without change. We have not made any 
further changes to Sec.  195.1, beyond those proposed, that would 
change the scope of part 195.

V. Advisory Committee

    On July 24, 2007, PHMSA convened, via telephone conference, a 
meeting of the THLPSSC, which is a statutorily mandated advisory 
committee that advises PHMSA about the technical feasibility, 
reasonableness and cost-effectiveness of its proposed regulations.
    The purpose of the meeting was to request the committee to vote on 
the proposed rules as presented in the NPRM for rural hazardous liquid 
gathering lines and in the SNPRM for rural low-stress hazardous liquid 
pipelines. PHMSA discussed some of the key comments received in 
response to the NPRM (a quarter mile buffer zone and ``continuous 
monitoring'' for operators with rural onshore gathering lines) and also 
to the SNPRM (half mile buffer zone and the notification process for 
operators with rural onshore low-stress pipelines). These comments have 
been previously discussed in this document.
    Some members of the committee were concerned that the rulemaking 
does not cover all rural low-stress pipelines and does not meet the 
mandate from the PIPES Act to have regulations for low-stress pipelines 
in place a year from its enactment. The PIPES Act allows PHMSA to phase 
in the regulations for low-stress pipelines. PHMSA presented to the 
committee in January 2007 its plan to approach regulating rural low-
stress pipelines in two phases. In this initial phase, PHMSA is 
implementing full regulation of the higher-risk, larger-diameter rural 
low-stress pipelines. PHMSA has not yet proposed adding requirements to 
rural low-stress pipelines not addressed in the SNPRM.
    A few members of the committee expressed a concern that the 
proposed regulations did not require the operator of a rural low-stress 
pipeline to conduct an analysis of the pipeline to determine which 
pipeline segments ``could affect'' a USA. As discussed earlier, PHMSA 
concludes that the ``buffer'' approach that includes low-stress 
pipelines within a half mile of a USA captures the pipeline segments 
that could affect USAs. The buffer is intended to approximate the 
could-affect analyses based on the risk factors most common for these 
rural low-stress pipelines. We have given operators the option of using 
a could-affect analysis to determine the exact size of the could-affect 
area.
    During the meeting, committee members addressed the API comment 
that the repair criteria in Sec.  195.452(h) be revised to relax the 
requirement to repair dents without metal loss, stating that dents 
operating at such low pressures pose a much lower risk of failure. As 
discussed previously, this change to the regulations is beyond the 
scope of this rulemaking proceeding. PHMSA plans to review these 
criteria as we move into the phase two rulemaking for rural low-stress 
pipelines.
    After careful consideration, the THLPSSC voted unanimously to find 
the NPRM, SNPRM, and supporting regulatory evaluations technically 
feasible, reasonable, practicable, and cost effective. A transcript of 
the teleconference is available in Docket ID PHMSA-RSPA-2003-15864.

VI. Final Rule

    The final rule revises 49 CFR part 195 to bring the higher risk, 
large diameter rural onshore gathering lines and low-stress pipelines 
under its coverage. The final rule also revises the statement of the 
scope of part 195 for clarity and revises the instructions for sending 
notifications related to integrity management assessments to change the 
mailing address (due to DOT headquarters recent move) and to add an 
option to submit the notification via the Internet.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 195.1 Which pipelines are covered by this part?

    Part 195 has been revised numerous times over the years. These 
changes have often included changes to the pipelines covered or 
excluded as described in Sec.  195.1. As a result of these piecemeal 
changes, this section became somewhat confusing. We have revised this 
section to provide more clarity.
    This section identifies the scope of hazardous liquid pipelines to 
which part 195 requirements apply. Section 195.1(b) includes a list of 
particular types of pipelines that are exempted from the requirements 
of part 195.
    This rule also adds certain rural onshore gathering lines and low-
stress pipelines to the list of pipelines for which part 195 is 
applicable. This requires a change to Sec.  195.1 to add these 
pipelines to the scope. The pipelines added to the scope of part 195 
are regulated rural gathering lines (defined in Sec.  195.1(a)(4)(ii)), 
rural low-stress pipelines meeting specified criteria (Sec.  
195.1(a)(5)(ii)). In addition, we have also added the reporting 
requirements for all rural low-stress pipelines (Sec.  195.1(a)(6)).
    There are no other substantive changes.

Section 195.11 What is a regulated rural gathering line and what 
requirements apply?

    This final rule adds this new section. This section defines the 
rural gathering lines newly subject to safety regulation (Sec.  
195.11(a)). These are rural gathering lines from 6\5/8\ to 8\5/8\ 
inches in diameter that are located in or within a quarter mile of a 
USA as defined in Sec.  195.6, and that operate at greater than 20 
percent SMYS (or more than 125 psi (861 kPa) gage for non-steel pipe). 
USAs include areas requiring extra protection because of the presence 
of sole source drinking water, endangered species, or other ecological 
resources that could be damaged by oil leaks.
    This section also defines the regulatory requirements applicable to 
regulated rural gathering lines (Sec.  195.11(b)) and timeframes for 
implementation. All new rural gathering lines meeting the criteria in 
paragraph (a) must be designed, installed, constructed, and tested in 
accordance with the requirements of part 195. The maximum operating 
pressure for regulated rural gathering lines must be established in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec.  195.406. These pipelines must 
also be marked and must be addressed by a public education and a damage 
prevention program. Steel pipelines must be protected from corrosion in 
accordance with the requirements of subpart H. Operators must also 
develop and implement a program to continuously assess operating 
conditions (e.g., flow rate) that could lead to internal corrosion, to 
clean their lines accordingly, and to begin or

[[Page 31641]]

modify the use of corrosion inhibitors as needed. Finally, operators 
must be able to demonstrate that personnel who perform activities on 
these pipelines are qualified for such tasks.

Section 195.12 What requirements apply to low-stress pipelines in rural 
areas?

    This section is also newly added in this final rule. It applies to 
low-stress pipelines 8\5/8\ inches and greater in diameter that are 
located in, or within a half mile of, a USA as defined in Sec.  195.6, 
and that operate at less than 20 percent of SMYS (or less than 125 psi 
(861 kPa) gage for non-steel pipe). Affected operators must comply with 
all requirements of part 195, as required by the PIPES Act. This 
section identifies the timeframes in which operators must comply with 
various portions of part 195 (Sec.  195.12(b)). The timeframes are 
based on PHMSA's judgment concerning how long it will take an operator 
to implement the requirements without imposing undue burden.
    This section also includes a provision allowing operators of 
affected pipelines meeting certain criteria to notify PHMSA if they 
conclude that implementing the integrity management assessment 
requirements will pose such an economic burden that they would abandon 
their pipelines. This provision is limited to rural low-stress 
pipelines carrying crude oil from production facilities and where 
shutdown of the pipeline would cause loss of oil supply or a transition 
to truck transportation. PHMSA (with assistance from DOE, as 
appropriate) will review notifications and, if justified, may grant the 
operator a special permit to allow continued operation of the pipeline 
subject to alternative safety requirements.
    This section does not apply to rural low-stress pipelines that 
cross a waterway used for commercial navigation because they are 
currently regulated under this part. This rule makes no change to the 
applicability of part 195 requirements to these pipelines.

Section 195.48 Scope

    There has not previously been a scope section in subpart B, because 
all pipelines subject to part 195 were subject to all the requirements 
in subpart B. This section is added as part of this final rule to 
define the scope of pipelines now subject to subpart B reporting 
requirements. All pipelines that have previously been subject to part 
195 must still meet all subpart B reporting requirements. In addition, 
all rural low-stress pipelines (including those not meeting the 
criteria in Sec.  195.12(a)) must follow the reporting requirements 
beginning six months after the effective date of the final rule. 
Subpart B thus now applies to some pipelines (i.e., rural low-stress 
pipelines not meeting the criteria of Sec.  195.12(a)) that are not 
otherwise subject to part 195. This is a first step towards applying 
all the requirements of part 195 to all rural low-stress pipelines, as 
required by the PIPES Act, and is intended to generate information that 
will be necessary for future regulatory analysis. Rural low-stress 
pipelines not now subject to the other requirements of part 195 are not 
required to complete those portions of the annual report form that 
relate to integrity management requirements and inspections.

Section 195.452 Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas

    The substantive integrity management requirements in this section 
are not changed. The only change is to paragraph (m), which informs 
operators where and how to submit notifications that are required under 
this section. DOT headquarters has moved to a different location in 
Washington, DC, and the mailing address in this paragraph is changed 
accordingly. Paragraph (m) has also been modified to provide the option 
for operators to submit notifications via the Internet. PHMSA would 
prefer that operators use Internet submission.

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures

    PHMSA considers the final rule a significant regulatory action 
under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 
1993). The rulemaking is also significant under DOT regulatory policies 
and procedures (44 FR 11034: February 26, 1979). PHMSA has prepared a 
final Regulatory Evaluation, a copy of which has been placed in the 
docket.
    Both rural onshore gathering lines and rural onshore low-stress 
pipelines will be affected by the regulatory changes included in the 
final rule. The following table presents the estimates of the mileage 
affected by the final rule.

                   Table.--Summary of Affected Mileage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Category                              Miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Rural Gathering Lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gathering line mileage affected............................          599
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Rural Low-Stress Pipelines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-stress mileage brought under part 195 safety                     803
 requirements..............................................
Additional low-stress mileage for which annual, accident,          3,921
 and safety-related condition reports must be filed........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary quantifiable benefits expected from the final rule are 
improved safety performance and reliability for the pipeline mileage 
brought under part 195. That is, the final rule is expected to reduce 
the number of incidents and the incident consequences (including 
deaths, injuries, property damage, product loss, environmental damage, 
and environmental spill cleanup activities). The final rule is expected 
to generate benefits from both the affected gathering lines and the 
affected low-stress pipelines.
    Overall, the benefits of the final rule are expected to be 
approximately $4 million annually. This includes only a portion of the 
total benefits, since benefits from improved safety of gathering lines 
could not be quantified. The present value of the benefits that could 
be quantified for a 20-year period using a 3-percent discount rate is 
approximately $58 million, while the present value for a 20-year period 
using a 7-percent discount rate is approximately $41 million.
    This final rule also may produce benefits by preventing disruptions 
in the fuel supply caused by pipeline failures. Any interruption in the 
fuel supply impacts the U.S. economy by putting upward pressure on the 
prices paid by businesses and consumers, as recent incidents on Alaskan 
low-stress pipelines feeding major petroleum trunk lines have 
illustrated. Supply disruptions also have national security 
implications, because they increase dependence on foreign sources of 
oil.
    The operators of the pipelines affected by the regulatory changes 
included in the final rule are expected to incur costs attributable to 
those changes. Both the affected gathering lines and the affected low-
stress pipelines are expected to incur costs attributable to the final 
rule.
    With respect to rural gathering lines, the following activities 
required by the final rule are those most likely to give rise to new 
costs:
     Determine whether the pipelines are within a quarter mile 
of a USA.

[[Page 31642]]

     Implement corrosion control for steel pipes.
     Continuously identify operating conditions that could 
contribute to internal corrosion.
     Install and maintain pipeline line markers.
     Implement a damage prevention program.
     Implement a public education program.
     Establish a maximum operating pressure (MOP) for steel 
pipes.
     Report accidents and safety-related conditions and make 
annual reports.
     Meet design, construction, and testing requirements for 
steel gathering lines constructed, replaced, relocated, or otherwise 
changed.
     Meet drug and alcohol testing requirements.
     Demonstrate compliance with operator qualification 
requirements.
    With respect to rural low-stress pipelines, the costs of the rule 
will be those associated with bringing the affected pipelines into 
compliance with part 195, which has the following eight subparts:

 Subpart A--General
 Subpart B--Annual, Accident, and Safety-Related Condition 
Reporting
 Subpart C--Design Requirements
 Subpart D--Construction
 Subpart E--Pressure Testing
 Subpart F--Operation and Maintenance
 Subpart G--Qualification of Pipeline Personnel
 Subpart H--Corrosion Control

    In addition, the low-stress pipelines brought under part 195 would 
also need to comply with 49 CFR part 199, which deals with alcohol and 
drug testing.
    Overall, the costs of the final rule are expected to be 
approximately $6 million in the first year, $3 million in the second 
through the sixth years, and $2 million in all subsequent years. The 
present value of this cost over 20 years using a 3-percent discount 
rate is approximately $39 million, while its present value over 20 
years using a 7-percent discount rate is approximately $29 million.
    Comparing the benefits and costs indicates the final rule is cost-
beneficial. Net benefits (the excess of benefits over costs) for the 
final rule are approximately $20 million using a 3-percent discount 
rate and $13 million using a 7-percent discount rate. When considering 
these results, it should be kept in mind that many benefits associated 
with the final rule could not be quantified.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), PHMSA 
must consider whether its rulemaking actions would have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Based on consultations with the IPAA, which represents over 6,000 
independent crude oil and natural gas producers throughout the U.S. and 
with the Small Business Administration, PHMSA expects a very few small 
operators to be affected by the rule. Rather, PHMSA expects that the 
rule will affect major petroleum pipeline companies with more than 
1,500 employees.
    Based on available information, PHMSA expects that major petroleum 
pipeline companies operate the gathering lines operating at more than 
20% of SMYS (or alternatively at 125 psi (861 kPa) gage). In total, 35 
major petroleum pipeline companies were estimated to operate these 
gathering lines. PHMSA's information also indicates that major 
petroleum pipeline companies are expected to operate the low-stress 
lines with a nominal diameter of 8\5/8\ inches or greater. The exact 
number of major petroleum pipeline companies operating these pipelines 
is unknown, although it is estimated to be between 30 and 40.
    PHMSA notes that the requirement for all operators of low-stress 
pipelines to submit annual, accident, and safety-related condition 
reports will affect small operators. The costs associated with this 
reporting, however, will be minor (see the summary of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act analysis, which is presented below). Therefore, based on 
this information showing that the economic impact of this rule on small 
entities will be minor, I certify under section 605 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act that these regulations will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13175

    PHMSA has analyzed this final rule according to the principles and 
criteria in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments.'' Because this final rule will not 
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal 
governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding 
and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains information collection requirements 
applicable to operators of hazardous liquid gathering lines and low-
stress pipelines in rural areas. The information collection required by 
this rulemaking is already approved under OMB Control No. 2137-0047. 
With an estimated additional 35 operators subject to these 
requirements, this rulemaking will add an additional 873 burden hours 
in the first year of implementation and 453 burden hours in subsequent 
years. Renewal of the existing information collection with the 
additional burden is pending.
    Operators of regulated rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering 
lines will be required to comply with 49 CFR part 195 information 
collection requirements for demonstration of operator qualification, 
public awareness, drug and alcohol testing, and annual, accident, and 
safety-related condition reporting. Operators of certain gathering 
lines in non-rural areas are currently subject to part 195. The number 
of gathering line operators subject to regulation may vary as lines are 
brought into and taken out of service and as changes occur in the 
boundaries of non-rural locations. The number may also vary as changes 
occur as new USAs are identified. The final rule is not expected to 
substantially increase the number of operators under PHMSA jurisdiction 
and will only marginally increase the burden hours for all information 
collections requirements.
    The burden hours will remain the same for the operator 
qualification and drug and alcohol reporting requirements because 
regulated rural onshore gathering line operators may continue to use 
their existing cadre of personnel to address the requirements in this 
final rule, and this rule will not require operators to modify their 
existing programs. Regarding operator qualification, operators only 
need to demonstrate that they are complying with the operator 
qualification requirements. Therefore, no additional employees will be 
tested or be required to qualify to perform covered pipeline duties. 
There will be a slight increase in burden hours for operators adding 
gathering lines to their public awareness, damage prevention, and 
corrosion control programs, and subpart B reporting requirements. Most, 
if not all, of the operators of these pipelines already have to comply 
with these existing program requirements and only need to add these 
regulated rural onshore gathering lines to their existing programs. It 
should take each operator no more than an additional eight burden hours 
to include the gathering lines into its public awareness program, and 
four burden hours to modify its damage prevention program. The final 
rule will require operators to modify their corrosion control programs 
to establish comprehensive programs for continuously identifying 
operating

[[Page 31643]]

conditions that could contribute to internal corrosion; this should 
take each operator no more than an additional ten burden hours 
annually. Lastly, it will require no more than an additional eight 
hours for an operator to comply with the annual, accident, and safety-
related condition reporting requirements in subpart B. These burden 
hour estimates are based on data for currently regulated pipelines.
    Therefore, this final rule marginally increases the burden hours 
for regulated rural onshore gathering line operators. This rule adds 
1,050 additional burden hours to affected regulated onshore rural 
gathering lines operators the first year, and 630 burden hours each 
subsequent year. The associated cost of these annual burden hours is 
$67,987.50 in the first year and $40,792.50 every year thereafter.
    Operators of hazardous liquid low-stress lines will be required to 
comply with all information collection requirements in part 195. 
Further, operators of low-stress lines that will remain unregulated 
must comply with the reporting requirements in subpart B, i.e., annual, 
accident, and safety-related condition reports. The operators of 
certain low-stress lines in non-rural areas are currently subject to 
part 195. Like gathering line operators, the number of low-stress 
pipeline operators subject to regulation also may vary as lines are 
brought into and taken out of service and as changes occur in the 
boundaries of non-rural locations. This final rule also may vary as 
changes occur as new USAs are identified. Except for the subpart B 
reporting requirements, this final rule is not expected to increase the 
number of operators under PHMSA jurisdiction complying with part 195.
    The burden hours will remain the same for operator qualification 
and drug and alc